Appeal No. 2003-1176
Application No. 09/074,288
limitation of the invention recited in the appealed claims.
(Id. at 5-6 and 8.)
With respect to the rejections based on Takeuchi, we
determined (original decision at 8):
Takeuchi describes a vehicle door trim A
comprising, inter alia, a mat-shaped glass fiber
reinforcing material 1 within a foam base material 3
that is molded integrally on the back side of a facing
material 5. (Column 3, lines 23-31; Figures 1-3.)
Takeuchi, therefore, describes every limitation of the
invention recited in appealed claims 1 and 2.[ ]4
The appellants argued that Takeuchi’s mat-shaped fiber
reinforcing material is not porous after impregnation with the
foam base material 3 (appeal brief at 10), but we found this
contention without merit for the same reasons discussed above
with respect to Rohrlach. (Original decision at 9.)
Discussion
In their request, the appellants urge (request at 1):
The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did
not understand that the prior art does not teach or
suggest an article meeting all of the requirements of
the claims at a single moment in time. Neither of the
applied prior art references teaches or suggests an
article that simultaneously has a porous substrate and
[ ]4 As to obviousness, we cited precedents holding that a
prior art disclosure that anticipates a claim under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 also renders the claim obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(Original decision at 9.)
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007